Unregistered, as a new member your first 5 posts will be subject to moderation.
So if your post is submitted successfully, but does not show up immediately, please be patient, as it may take some time for a moderator to approve it.
Please don't double post.

If they were saying "monogamy is not biologically innate for some people" I would tend to agree. I think a lot more people are biologically poly-wired than they themselves realize, and end up monogamous solely due to a lack of self-awareness and a glut of societal conditioning.

However, monogamy is absolutely biologically innate for some people. I'm closely related to three of them. They've never had the desire for more than one relationship at a time (just sexual or deeper), and they've never had romantic feelings for more than one person at a time. And these are all people who are aware that there are other possibilities and that some people are capable of being in multiple loving relationships without sacrificing anything significant within those relationships (i.e. everyone's needs are met) or are okay with having casual sexual encounters outside of a romantic relationship. They've just never had those feelings or desires themselves. The one who is in his 30's may explore non-monogamy at some point, given the right person/circumstance, but the two in their 60's are unlikely, I think, to suddenly find themselves in a situation where they decide to try some sort of non-monogamy.

I think by my parents/family and the media I was kind of brain washed into monogamy because I didn't know any other way. Before meeting my husband I was all about monogamy. When he told me he was polyamorous and I began learning and understanding polyamory, I realized it fit me. It's only natural for people to feel attractions/connections with other people. When I was monogamous I suppressed those attractions/connections and didn't really pay attention to them because I thought I had to. I thought it was normal to ignore those attractions/connections. Until I learned more about polyamory.

One could also say that sex itself is not biological, since there are many out there who choose or are naturally inclined to celibacy.

I contend there is a strong biological connection to our behavior, both mono and poly.

My "Survival of the Horniest" Theory:

Members of a sexual species that do not procreate do not pass their genetic information to the next generation.

Members who choose partners for procreation discriminately increase the odds of their genes being passed on successfully in not only the next generation, but following generations (Strong, smart, stable, &c = attractive)

Some of the traits passed on are things like sexual drive/aggression, health of sexual function and personality traits which help progeny "get laid".

Over time, the "stronger" tend to breed more and the less desirous of sex breed less. The population reflects these variables.

This is my "Survival of the Horniest" Theory.
IMO, monogamy is a tendency (biologically) to play conservatively, staking all resources and energy on a single most viable partner.
Polyamory is less "all the eggs in one basket" and spreads resources over a wider field. This is a better strategy for males of our species (in terms of procreation) as one male can impregnate droves of females whereas females are limited by the time constraints of gestation to a handful of breeding partners.

I do not think mono or poly is entirely biological, but I think there is a strong connection. Part of being a human is the ability to override a natural genetic inclination (instinct) and make choices based on logic, right down to denying the very basic instinct of self-preservation in some situations.

__________________Often he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him...and he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

I think this argument gets muddled because when you're talking about innate biology, you can either mean the overall biology of humans as a species, or the innate biology of individuals.

For example: As a species, humans are very sexual creatures. (We are MUCH more sexual than most other primates). This is basically a true statement.

But: to say that all humans are innately sexual is flat-out wrong. Individual humans have a whole range of sexual-ness, from super-sexual to asexual. And each individual human's sexuality/asexuality may be innate, something they were just born with.

So I think a lot of people get upset at the generalization about humans as a species because individual humans have such a range and variety of "innateness."

Personally, I find it useful and interesting to talk about humans as a species, but a lot of people don't.

Monogamy is more than just a relationship structure, and this is what kills me when I see the argument that "monogamy is <x>". From my POV, there are two aspects of monogamy:

1. I only desire one person romantically at a time
2. I want my partner to love only me

I was in a rush. Sorry about that -- we use words differently. To clarify... to me?

"Monogamy, polygamy, polyfidelity, open, closed, triad, V, quad" -- those kinds of words are describing the relationship structures people could be in.

The desire for only one person to love romantically at a time to me is "monoamory." The desire to love many to me is "polyamory." I think there are some people internally wired for mono- and some wired for poly-. Just like some people are wired for fast or slow metabolism or whatever trait. They just come wired how they come.

"Monogamy" and words like that about relationship structures are more "society/culture" things than "biology" things to me though. A polyamorous wired person could choose to be in a monogamous relationship structure. A monoamorous person could choose to be in a "V" structure.

I was in a rush. Sorry about that -- we use words differently. To clarify... to me?

"Monogamy, polygamy, polyfidelity, open, closed, triad, V, quad" -- those kinds of words are describing the relationship structures people could be in.

The desire for only one person to love romantically at a time to me is "monoamory." The desire to love many to me is "polyamory." I think there are some people internally wired for mono- and some wired for poly-. Just like some people are wired for fast or slow metabolism or whatever trait. They just come wired how they come.

"Monogamy" and words like that about relationship structures are more "society/culture" things than "biology" things to me though. A polyamorous wired person could choose to be in a monogamous relationship structure. A monoamorous person could choose to be in a "V" structure.